or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Multi-IEM Review - 352 IEMs compared (Pump Audio Earphones added 04/03/16 p. 1106)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Multi-IEM Review - 352 IEMs compared (Pump Audio Earphones added 04/03/16 p. 1106) - Page 501

post #7501 of 16803
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calneon View Post

I'm looking for some new in ear headphones after my previous set died. I've used an Ultimate Ears 400vi set which I liked, but the cable became loose and started making noise whenever it moved, so I had to return it. After that I got a set of Klipsch Image S4s which I was rather disappointed with after using the UEs, they were very uncomfortable in my ears, there was a piece of plastic that poked into the side of my ear, plus the sound quality wasn't what i was expecting. Anyway, one of the ear pieces just broke on them so I have an excuse to replace them!

 

Very tempted by the Yamaha EPH100s you recommend so much on here, only issue I have is that they don't have controls on the cord, which both my previous sets did and I found it very useful. For a similar price the Nocs NS400 seem to be what I'm looking for but I'm not sure how the image quality stands up to the Yamahas. Are there any other headphones you would recommend at a similar quality/price to the Yamahas which do have controls? If not, I'll probably just go for those and make do without the controls. Thanks for any replies.

 

To get EPH-100 level performance with controls and a bass-heavy signature you'd have to look at the Monster Trumpets, which are a lot more expensive. If you're willing to drop to a lower tier then there's a number of options - the MEElec CC51P should be a good UE400 replacement with its v-shaped yet refined sound. The Phonak 022 (whichever one has the mic) is decent also and gives you the ability to get another set of filters later for a different sound. Plus it's one of the more comfortable earphones out there. The Shure SE215+mic cable is another solid all-rounder that should be comfortable for most ears. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Subrising View Post

Would it be worth a $30-40 price difference compared to Xcape IE or $60-70 over HiSound Audio PoPos or Crystals? I'm not 100% sure if I want to shell out that much for IEMs just yet. What would your recommendation be for a sub $100 IEM for a bass head that also likes to listen to lighter stuff?

Thanks so much for your help also and to everyone else as well. Really helping me with my situation and I'm learning a heap.

 

Like I said, can't recommend the Xcape IE even though it's a great earphone. The Crystal is more of a competitor for the Shure SE215. Good, just not EPH-100-good. Also not sure a Crystal would do it for a proper bass head. In that price range perhaps a Hippo VB or Fischer Audio Consonance would be more suitable. Or you could save a good chunk of change and try a Vsonic GR02 bass edition.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthem View Post

Hi joker, between the SOUNDMAGIC PL50 and e30 which one do you think does cymbals with better clarity and sparkle?

 

Neither is great but if I had to pick one, probably the E30. The E30 doesn't have great resolution but the PL50 rolls off earlier and its buttery smoothness works against it in some ways. I've actually never heard an earphone based on a Knowles SR driver that had great highs. Most have decent quality and somewhat less decent quantity. 

post #7502 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljokerl View Post

 I've actually never heard an earphone based on a Knowles SR driver that had great highs. Most have decent quality and somewhat less decent quantity. 

Seems like when they use enough filter to even the lower treble bump, the extension suffers and if you don't use that much acoustic resistance the 3-4k range overshadows what's up there anyways. I still kinda like some of their low hash clarity and could understand someone preferring them at $60.

post #7503 of 16803
Hey guys, just wondering if any of you had tried both the triple fi 10 and the gr07/gr07 mk2. I listen to hip hop, dubstep, dnb, and some indie and rock. Which is best for me? Thank you! smily_headphones1.gif
post #7504 of 16803
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

Seems like when they use enough filter to even the lower treble bump, the extension suffers and if you don't use that much acoustic resistance the 3-4k range overshadows what's up there anyways. I still kinda like some of their low hash clarity and could understand someone preferring them at $60.

 

Not a lot of armatures out there at $60 anyway. I do think some of the new pricing with the MEElec A151 and Astrotec AM-90 at $35-45 is great for the consumer. Hopefully the days of $100 SR-based earphones are gone. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by willpayne View Post

Hey guys, just wondering if any of you had tried both the triple fi 10 and the gr07/gr07 mk2. I listen to hip hop, dubstep, dnb, and some indie and rock. Which is best for me? Thank you! smily_headphones1.gif

 

I've only heard the mkI of the GR07 and prefer that to the TF10, personally. The TF10 is a bit more colored-sounding, more v-shaped in response with more treble sparkle. I can see someone preferring the UE but I thought the GR07 was more natural-sounding, especially in  bass. 

post #7505 of 16803

What IEMs would give me a big open sound similar to the Sennheiser MX980?

post #7506 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljokerl View Post

 

All of the Bass Editions will be the latest version - that model wasn't around until this year.

 

And, same signature does not mean same ability. The GR02 is still the better earphone, just not voiced as differently from an M9 as, say, an Brainwavz M2

 

 

My iD America Sparks came in today and I placed an order for the Vsonic GR02 a couple of days ago. Haven't really listen much with the iD America Sparks but I think they are pretty good. Got good bass and sound a lot more clear than my M9. Not sure if it was worth the $80 CAD I paid for it. It's better than me M9 for sure but not that much better. I think I paid like $30 or so for the M9. Anyways I'm going to listen to it a bit more. So far I'm satisfied but it was nothing that wowed me.

post #7507 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljokerl View Post

 

Not a lot of armatures out there at $60 anyway. I do think some of the new pricing with the MEElec A151 and Astrotec AM-90 at $35-45 is great for the consumer. Hopefully the days of $100 SR-based earphones are gone. 

 

I've only heard the mkI of the GR07 and prefer that to the TF10, personally. The TF10 is a bit more colored-sounding, more v-shaped in response with more treble sparkle. I can see someone preferring the UE but I thought the GR07 was more natural-sounding, especially in  bass. 

 



Sounds like your TF10 review is close to complete?


Edited by gjohnst4 - 7/11/12 at 7:34pm
post #7508 of 16803

Joker, PLEASE tell me you have this thread backed up somewhere. It would be a shame to lose such a resource.

post #7509 of 16803
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by anoxy View Post

What IEMs would give me a big open sound similar to the Sennheiser MX980?

 

Never heard the MX980 but some of the more open-sounding earphones I've heard are the new Sonys - EX600, MDR-7550, and EX1000.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by matryx View Post

 

My iD America Sparks came in today and I placed an order for the Vsonic GR02 a couple of days ago. Haven't really listen much with the iD America Sparks but I think they are pretty good. Got good bass and sound a lot more clear than my M9. Not sure if it was worth the $80 CAD I paid for it. It's better than me M9 for sure but not that much better. I think I paid like $30 or so for the M9. Anyways I'm going to listen to it a bit more. So far I'm satisfied but it was nothing that wowed me.

 

I'd give them some time without A:Bing with the M9s. The difference should be more clear when you go back to the MEElecs after some days.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gjohnst4 View Post

 



Sounds like your TF10 review is close to complete?

 

It's been in that state for a year or so...

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by eke2k6 View Post

Joker, PLEASE tell me you have this thread backed up somewhere. It would be a shame to lose such a resource.

 

Not very good about that to be honest. Since 100 or so earphones in I've been sticking all the posted reviews (without formatting) into a separate word document, which is now 358 pages / 170k words long. Counting on google cache for the older reviews. I should probably save HTML copies of the review posts at some point.  


Edited by ljokerl - 7/12/12 at 12:20pm
post #7510 of 16803

I have what I think is a kind of fundamental question:  When it's stated that the EPH-100's have a 5.5mm driver, or the CC51's have a 6mm driver, is this a direct correlation to the outermost diameter of the housing going in the ear canal, or rather a measurement a part within the housing/IEM?

 

Beyond this generic question, I have a more specific question for my case in point:  I'm presently hoping to step up from my A151's to EPH-100's, but I've become aware over time that my canals are narrower than average.  In my experience, the CC51's even with the smallest tips were terribly painful (loved the sound, but ouch!).  The A151's are most comfortable with the stock tri-flange actually - depth is not an issue and by its construction it appears the largest flange is able to compress with minimal little resistance relative to the other tips.  Some years back, a few models of the Sony EX series IEM's using the smallest tips (SS) were perhaps the comfiest fit with adequate seal I've ever experienced.

 

Can anyone with EPH-100's relate their physical fit to any of this?  Short of Joker's general caution regarding nozzle diameter,  these appear to be a great step up.  I'm hopeful the nozzles are at least incrementally smaller than the CC51 by the driver stats (but again maybe there's no correlation). 

 

Thanks so much!

post #7511 of 16803

I cannot speak to the specifics for the phones you listed, but I can answer your first question. The diameter is the diameter of the driver, not the housing. That said, the housing must be large enough to hold the driver. Is the housing necessarily going to be different for a 5.5 or a 6mm driver? No. That's a half millimeter size difference, and there could be fairings around the driver or a different thickness of the housing walls that make the housing wider. Will a 10mm driver have a larger housing than a 6mm driver? Probably, that is a big enough difference that the housing would need to be bigger to account for the difference.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nickarus View Post

I have what I think is a kind of fundamental question:  When it's stated that the EPH-100's have a 5.5mm driver, or the CC51's have a 6mm driver, is this a direct correlation to the outermost diameter of the housing going in the ear canal, or rather a measurement a part within the housing/IEM?

 

Beyond this generic question, I have a more specific question for my case in point:  I'm presently hoping to step up from my A151's to EPH-100's, but I've become aware over time that my canals are narrower than average.  In my experience, the CC51's even with the smallest tips were terribly painful (loved the sound, but ouch!).  The A151's are most comfortable with the stock tri-flange actually - depth is not an issue and by its construction it appears the largest flange is able to compress with minimal little resistance relative to the other tips.  Some years back, a few models of the Sony EX series IEM's using the smallest tips (SS) were perhaps the comfiest fit with adequate seal I've ever experienced.

 

Can anyone with EPH-100's relate their physical fit to any of this?  Short of Joker's general caution regarding nozzle diameter,  these appear to be a great step up.  I'm hopeful the nozzles are at least incrementally smaller than the CC51 by the driver stats (but again maybe there's no correlation). 

 

Thanks so much!

post #7512 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljokerl View Post

 

It's been in that state for a year or so...

 

 

I can gather that you really like to tease people... wink.gif

post #7513 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickarus View Post

I have what I think is a kind of fundamental question:  When it's stated that the EPH-100's have a 5.5mm driver, or the CC51's have a 6mm driver, is this a direct correlation to the outermost diameter of the housing going in the ear canal, or rather a measurement a part within the housing/IEM?

 

Beyond this generic question, I have a more specific question for my case in point:  I'm presently hoping to step up from my A151's to EPH-100's, but I've become aware over time that my canals are narrower than average.  In my experience, the CC51's even with the smallest tips were terribly painful (loved the sound, but ouch!).  The A151's are most comfortable with the stock tri-flange actually - depth is not an issue and by its construction it appears the largest flange is able to compress with minimal little resistance relative to the other tips.  Some years back, a few models of the Sony EX series IEM's using the smallest tips (SS) were perhaps the comfiest fit with adequate seal I've ever experienced.

 

Can anyone with EPH-100's relate their physical fit to any of this?  Short of Joker's general caution regarding nozzle diameter,  these appear to be a great step up.  I'm hopeful the nozzles are at least incrementally smaller than the CC51 by the driver stats (but again maybe there's no correlation). 

 

Thanks so much!

 

You confused me there, using the term "driver".

 

ljoker's reviews state "nozzle size".  EPH-100 nozzle size: 5.5mm, CC51 nozzle size: 6mm

 

Yes the "nozzle size" is a direct measure of the outermost diameter of the housing going in the ear canal.

post #7514 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by scootsit View Post

I cannot speak to the specifics for the phones you listed, but I can answer your first question. The diameter is the diameter of the driver, not the housing. That said, the housing must be large enough to hold the driver. Is the housing necessarily going to be different for a 5.5 or a 6mm driver? No. That's a half millimeter size difference, and there could be fairings around the driver or a different thickness of the housing walls that make the housing wider. Will a 10mm driver have a larger housing than a 6mm driver? Probably, that is a big enough difference that the housing would need to be bigger to account for the difference.


Thanks so much scootsit - this answers that misunderstanding for me very clearly!

 

So my present question really revolves around the relative housing/nozzle size of the EPH-100's, not the driver statistic.  I'll keep digging around, but if any comparisons that can be drawn or experiences related I'd be most appreciative!

 

Also it's been said a gazillion times but bears repeating:  Joker, your efforts are something for which I and many others are terribly grateful. For the significant fraction of my life I've spent enjoying music in my free time, I thank you and and your brethren here for improving my quality of life =). 

post #7515 of 16803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickarus View Post


Thanks so much scootsit - this answers that misunderstanding for me very clearly!

 

So my present question really revolves around the relative housing/nozzle size of the EPH-100's, not the driver statistic.  I'll keep digging around, but if any comparisons that can be drawn or experiences related I'd be most appreciative!

 

Also it's been said a gazillion times but bears repeating:  Joker, your efforts are something for which I and many others are terribly grateful. For the significant fraction of my life I've spent enjoying music in my free time, I thank you and and your brethren here for improving my quality of life =). 

 

The numbers you quoted are "nozzle size", not "driver size".  See my reply above.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › Multi-IEM Review - 352 IEMs compared (Pump Audio Earphones added 04/03/16 p. 1106)